What in blazes was that? Was it a comedy? The director and the main actor(who were there) insisted it was 'based on a true story'. (the actor insited on this to me while standing at the next urinal in the toilets afterwards! "These events really happened!"). Part of the film was shot as documentary-style interviews with 'experts'. Is it a documentary about a well meaning nutter? Then why is most of it a wacky comedy and shot as such?
Was I supposed to take it seriously? If so, the unnecessary inclusion of wild humour and outrageous acting was arbitrary and detrimental.
Was I supposed to laugh and have a good time? If so, why put so much effort into pushing the veracity of the source material? Am I supposed to laugh mockingly at the man who's story this is?
I don't get it.
Posted by Gaunt at September 17, 2004 03:15 PM